Merge libraries

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Even though annotations already flag destructiveness, the description goes well beyond them, detailing model deduplication, handling of missing 3D models, warning reporting, and preservation of external STEP references. It also instructs using dry_run for a non-destructive preview, which is valuable behavioral guidance an agent could not derive from structured data.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, then moves into constraints and edge-case behavior. Each sentence earns its place; only the model-deduplication parenthetical adds some density without harming readability.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive merge tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential constraints, behavior, and preview path. It could explicitly mention what the result/return value looks like beyond 'reported in warnings, but given the strong schema and annotations, this is a minor gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description adds useful meaning on top: source libraries must all be the same type, and dry_run previews the merge without modifying files. It does not add much about on_duplicate, but the schema already documents that parameter's meaning and defaults, so the description's contribution is sufficient.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description starts with a specific verb and resource—'Merge multiple Altium libraries into a single library'—and clearly distinguishes this operation from sibling read, write, and copy tools. It also names the key constraint that all sources must be the same library type, which helps an agent pick it over alternatives like copy_component_cross_library.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives concrete usage context: all sources must be same type, and dry_run=true is recommended for preview. It does not explicitly contrast this tool with siblings or state when not to use it, but the task is well contextualized by the 'merge multiple libraries into one' framing.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.